At the same time, what a grand country we live in that people can gather and voice their opinion. I pray it stays peaceful and orderly and everyone gets their emotion out of their system.

What's funny is that this whole day is what Democracy looks like. People of massively different opinions and different goals expressing their voices, and votes.

It's messy. It's sometimes even loud. But I like this country of ours, because we can be free to be really angry at each other and know that everything, ultimately, is going to keep on running relatively smoothly.

I really don't understand why the Governor didn't order the Wisconsin State Patrol to open fire on these people who care about a bill!!

I thought he was tough - at a minimum he should have started some beat downs and firehosing.

When is AA going to analyze what appears to be a clear open meetings violation? Given her sensitivity to even the most miniscule of arguable civil rights violations, like, for example being forced to ask a question about having to wait in line and then delayed for 5 seconds to enter a public building, she ought to be all over this open records violation.

There are few sights more pleasing than radical liberals, socialists, union thugs and anarchists who have been defeated all in one place, whining and sobbing through the night.Can't wait to hear Rush tomorrow.

Pffft. Pikers. You call this Chaos? This is nothing compared to how we totally stormed tbe capitol building in DC and took it over when Obamacare was forced on us. We totally trashed that place with our angry chaos.

I grew up in Wisconsin, and my family still lives there. Reading the hateful comments on this blog, I can't imagine that the same is true of the vast majority of you. It saddens me that you all think it's okay to call great people (like my teacher brother) "union thugs" and the like. I think you are disgusting people, especially Ann, who dedicates her time to whipping you all into a frenzy and feigning objectivity for her own personal gain, and Meade, the Tea Party's top cop and the new master of Ann's political consciousness.

My question too. I can't blame the police for standing by. Refusing to escalate is probably the best response (so long as it works and some jackass doesn't escalate on his own).

But the handcuff thing is really odd. Are they police handcuffs? Are those particular doors special in some way? Are they outside doors, or did they handcuffed to prevent further access into some parts of the building?

Anyway, thank God it is the 21st century and the angry villagers don't carry torches.

If you want to see what's actually happening right now, watch the live feed from inside the capitol. don't take someone's opinion at face value, watch it and decide for yourself. http://tinyurl.com/4bv3utx

Really? Well, I guess that can only be true if it is a fact that unions take money from taxpayers and siphon it to Democratic politicians who vote in sweet deals for them...and that sounds so unethical..surely they would not do such a thing.

It isn't widely known, but the Republican Party actually won every single election before public unions were legalized in the 50s and 60s. True story.

FDR? Totally rethuglican. They just don't admit it because they're embarassed by his wheelchair. Republicans are, as roesch-voltaire pointed out, all about beating down the cripples.

This doesn't adequately respond to the video. Is it not somewhat troubling that Scott Fitzgerald is more than happy to admit that this legislation isn't based on a desire to simply reduce the state's deficit -- but rather to politically damage the other team under the guise of reducing the deficit?

There is no point in spilling blood, cracking heads or hauling them limp off to jail.

Let them trash the place if they feel they must.

Let the police fail to intervene.

Show up every day to conduct the people's business.

If it can't be done inside, do it on the steps of the capitol.

If they interfere on the steps, find another place. Publicize the time and location well in advance.

If the opponents want to hold their breath and turn blue, let them. Let them be a mob. Do not use violence against them, even moderate force. Respond only to their violence, if they turn that way. Let them be a mob. Do not let them be martyrs. They will fail if allowed to show their true colors.

Americans do not like mob rule. That is all these protestors have to offer. Do not allow them to act as victims, as they are not. They want to be a mob? Let them be one.

Really? Well, I guess that can only be true if it is a fact that unions take money from taxpayers and siphon it to Democratic politicians who vote in sweet deals for them...and that sounds so unethical..surely they would not do such a thing.

Yes, those Democratic politicians receive, on average, a whopping 18% of their campaign donations from unions: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117078618.html

I'm watching the live feed and the question that comes up for me is basic: Are there enough bathroom facilities and TP to accommodate that large a crowd through the night? Honestly, this is starting to look more like a Kotex moment in the making.

Is there just nothing at all to do in Wisconsin? It think ya'll are just suffering from some vitamin D deficiencies that are causing mass hysteria. It's probably because of the tanning bed tax. I prescribe a vacation to someplace sunny and warm stat. The doctor has spoken.

"This doesn't adequately respond to the video. Is it not somewhat troubling that Scott Fitzgerald is more than happy to admit that this legislation isn't based on a desire to simply reduce the state's deficit -- but rather to politically damage the other team under the guise of reducing the deficit?"

He didn't admit anything, but pointed out that if the unions are deprived of some dues, it'll be advantageous for the Republicans. Conversely, if the union holds onto the all of the dues, it will be advantageous for the Democrats. Would you happen to know the amount spent by both parties in Wisconsin on the '08 election?

That stream I posted is edited, so not exactly live. But still quite a look inside.

Some AFSCME firefighter boss just described the vote a "criminal" act, said the Republicans aren't playing by the rules (!), supports a general strike and loves Michael Moore's idea of having high school students walk out tomorrow. Snow day without the snow!

So. . . what's the endgame here? Like, you can protest all you want, but if the government is impervious to shame or public pressure, what do you actually get?

I'm assuming the teacher's union isn't quite ready to stage a coup, so. . . so what do the protests accomplish? Even if you could get 100% of the public (excluding elected officials) on your side, what can you do if your government decides that it cares more about passing the laws it likes than about getting re-elected?

Is there actually anything the protesters can do if they feel their elected representatives aren't representing them? Other than to suck it up and wait for four years?

(my emphasis -- first for humor, second for schadenfreude, third for the main point)

Therefore, only 82 percent of their funding is not from the public coffers.

Good to know, dude. This arguing thing: are you new to it?

Not uncoincidentally, union members accounted for 14.2% of wage and salary workers in Wisconsin in 2010: http://www.bls.gov/ro5/unionwi.htm

I fail to see how their funding is "from the public coffers": it's money that we paid people for their work -- unless you're implying that any money paid out to people who happen to work for government entities doesn't really belong to them but instead belongs to the public... which seems kind of -- I don't know -- socialist to me.

I don't know Paul Soglin from Adam, but a quick google says yes that's him... earlier in the interview he said he was mayor back in the 70's, does that track?

He's on the other side of the fence from me, but was doing a great job, restraining his exasperation with the lefty interviewer, that Madison in 2011 is neither Egypt nor the U.S. of 120 years ago. ("Why not support a general strike? See what it did in Egypt!....

I fail to see how their funding is "from the public coffers": it's money that we paid people for their work -- unless you're implying that any money paid out to people who happen to work for government entities doesn't really belong to them but instead belongs to the public... which seems kind of -- I don't know -- socialist to me.

Well, the money never actually gets to the 'workers' - until this bill passes, the state took this money for dues out of the check beforehand and handed it over to the unions, who then laundered it and gave it to democrats, who (oddly enough) then basically give the unions what they want come negotiation time.

So, really, the UNION takes that money form people and uses it to support the UNIONS' interests, and not necessarily the interests of the 'worker'.

I would hope that this is enough to make people FINALLY realize that Public-Employee Unions should be made illegal. The Police have evidently decided that their loyalty to another Union is higher than their loyalty to the Law, or to their Oaths.

I cannot imagine a way they could bring greater shame to themselves, their profession, nor their State. Every last one of them that has failed to do his or her duty tonight should be terminated and barred from ever again holding any sworn position. How can anyone ever again trust a WI Police Officer with these images in their mind? They'll always wonder, "Will they protect me, will they uphold the law, or will they feel a greater loyalty to their Union bosses' orders?"

Is it not somewhat troubling that Scott Fitzgerald is more than happy to admit that this legislation isn't based on a desire to simply reduce the state's deficit -- but rather to politically damage the other team under the guise of reducing the deficit?

It probably would have been troubling to me when I was 12 years old, before I knew that both parties have spent their entire histories trying to screw each other over as much as possible.

The important thing is that the public unions are being broken. That's a vital step for fixing not just Wisconsin, but American government as a whole. I don't care if this is being done out of pure motives or because Republicans are sexually aroused by the tears of union members.

Am I missing something here? If what you say is true -- and any money donated by public workers is tainted because it comes from "public coffers" -- why not simply support legislation that makes it illegal for public workers to donate to political campaigns?

There is no point in spilling blood, cracking heads or hauling them limp off to jail.

Let them trash the place if they feel they must.

Let the police fail to intervene.

Show up every day to conduct the people's business.

If it can't be done inside, do it on the steps of the capitol.

If they interfere on the steps, find another place. Publicize the time and location well in advance.

If the opponents want to hold their breath and turn blue, let them. Let them be a mob. Do not use violence against them, even moderate force. Respond only to their violence, if they turn that way. Let them be a mob. Do not let them be martyrs. They will fail if allowed to show their true colors.

Americans do not like mob rule. That is all these protestors have to offer. Do not allow them to act as victims, as they are not. They want to be a mob? Let them be one.

If what you say is true -- and any money donated by public workers is tainted because it comes from "public coffers" -- why not simply support legislation that makes it illegal for public workers to donate to political campaigns?

The bill passed today FIXES THAT VERY THING. Unions will now have to annually ASK workers if they can take that money from them and spend it on whatever the union wants to for political purposes.It's fee choice back to the workers - and that's freedom. That's America.

Several folks here have explained it to you, very succinctly. Multiple times. Union dues are not voluntary. Political contributions made with union dues do not come from individuals. They are extracted - INVOLUNTARILY and often CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS - from public employees.

Just so we're clear, it is the INVOLUNTARILY part that is particularly objectionable, but the whole scheme should be prosecutable under RICO.

Yes, I have. If people have the right to donate their money, they also have the right to form unions. Freedom of association.

Of course, and nobody is saying otherwise. On the other hand, there is no obligation on the part of the government to grant any special privileges to those unions. THAT is what is being taken away. THAT is what everyone is so upset about.

Union dues are not voluntary. Political contributions made with union dues do not come from individuals. They are extracted - INVOLUNTARILY and often CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS - from public employees.

If people have the right to donate their money, they also have the right to form unions. Freedom of association.

Yes - BUT, if people are FORCED to join a union because that's the only way they can work in that state, why should they also be forced to support political causes hey don't agree with by having money taken form every paycheck by that union to support political causes they don't agree with?

What about some local tribal custom of chanting "Shame, shame"? It's hard to find good rioters anymore. If we hear chants of "Verguenza, verguenza" tomorrow we will know that rioting is another job Americans wont do.

James: Are you aware that the 1939 federal Hatch Act forbids partisan activity by federal employees and state and local employees whose compensation in whole or in part is funded by the federal government.

I'll wager there isn't a teacher, policeman or firefighter in WI whose pay is not in part funded by the feds.

Union dues are not voluntary. Political contributions made with union dues do not come from individuals. They are extracted - INVOLUNTARILY and often CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS - from public employees.

Much as I hate to do it, I will have to pull out an old conservative maxim: "If you don't like it, go somewhere else."

Yes, I have. If people have the right to donate their money, they also have the right to form unions. Freedom of association.

Walker didn't strip them of their right to form unions and have freedom of association.

He stripped them of (a) their right to have legally-enforced collective bargaining for benefits and (b) their right to have the government force anyone who wants to work for the government to fund the union.

If the teachers want to get together in a big group and complain that their benefits aren't good enough, they still can. The government just won't be under any more of an obligation to listen to them than it is to listen to, say, the Tea Party.

Much as I hate to do it, I will have to pull out an old conservative maxim: "If you don't like it, go somewhere else."

Hate to do it? Don't play coy, my man, and try to put that old chestnut off on connservatives, even if only on the ones that camp out in your imagination! Hell, you're being absolutely consistent - your side invented it!

Here's a picture of the Koch brothers flanking King Walker on his inauguration float, borne on the broken backs of public workers!

That is awesome. I may print that out, circle the 'We eat for you' part with an arrow pointing at it from the word "Me", then circle the peopl eon the bottom with an arrow pointing at it from the word "You" and hang it on my office door at work.

Wasnt the Walker plan to take away only the benefits part away from collective bargaining?

Well, yeah. But he also gave every union employee the right and freedom to vote whether to certify the union or not every year! Can yo believe it? He gave them FREEDOM TO CHOOSE! Can you believe the nerve of that guy???

So, if my Republican brother is a carpenter and wants to take work from the State of Wisconsin, but can only do it if he joins the carpenter's - unlike many of the states, mind you - it's okay that the union takes his money whether he likes it or not and gives it to Democrats who stand for things he is against, like abortion and gun confiscation. That's okay with you James.

Apparently the bill that was passed is almost the same as the budget bill less a few things. The bill passed includes the benefit cuts. The senate republicans received an opinion from the senate non-partisan legislative counsel. Apparently, the term "fiscal" has been interpreted by Wisconsin courts very narrowly to include only taxing and statutory appropriations.

The idea that the senate republicans violated the open meeting law is also pretty thin. Even if they technically violated the law, a court would have to find that running afoul of the open meeting law outweighs the importance of the law itself (a yearly budget bill!) Plus it's pretty hard to argue that the public was not informed about the law or lacked a forum to speak about it.

James...if those union people are so upset that they are going to have to pay into their own pensions just like the peasants do...then they can go somewhere else too. But I don't think anywhere they go will be immune to financial realities.

Lem, those bargaining rights are tied to the rate of inflation however, and they don't like that..and they have to pay for part of their health care and their pensions too. They also have to have yearly votes to keep the unions certified..and I think they have to collect their own dues as well. Up until now the state has been collecting the dues and giving them to the unions.

The lawful authority in Wisconsin is in a very difficult position with few tools available. Between the media coloring perceptions and the White House controlling federal assets the duly elected government is not garaunteed to survive.

The breach of discipline by the State Police is most serious. They are no longer a lawful police authority. They are now a partisan force with guns. That makes this an Insurrection.

Does the Governor still command the loyalty of the Wisconsin National Guard? Can he mobilize a Company of the Guard and have them clear the Capitol? If need be can he call on the Republican Governors of neighboring Michigan and Iowa for assistance?

Given the current occupant of the White House an appeal for help under the US Constitution Art. IV, Sect. 4, cl. 2 is unlikely to work. It is more likely that if the Governor did activate the Guard that Obama would federalize them and then make a speech about Little Rock and the school house door.

If all else fails the Governor could call out the unorganized Militia, that is almost all males, citizens or lawful permanent residents, between 17 and 45, or veterans up to age 64. The term militia has already been demonized in the popular imagination by its association with fringe groups during the 1990s. Most people probably believe that the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh was an act of militia violence.

I have an update at Volokh. The Senate didn't violate the Open Meetings Law because it doesn't apply to Senate Rules. The question is whether they followed Senate Rules requiring 24 hours except in special circumstances, when 2 hours is adequate.

If they violated their own rules, then one would have to determine whether that mattered, which depends on the Stitt case as it may have been modified by the Milwaukee Journal case.